Ep. 1666 - Public Health “Experts” Want To Legitimize This Barbaric Practice In The Name Of Multiculturalism

There's a simple way to keep all those teams that are making content from going off-brand.

Meet Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content.

Now, everyone can make presentations, posts, videos, and flyers that follow design guidelines.

Brand kits with pre-approved assets and lockable templates make it easy.

Generative AI features powered by Firefly are safe for business, so people in marketing, HR, and sales can confidently create content on their own.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash express.

This This is Marshawn Lynch.

But on Prize Picks, being right can get you paid.

So I'm here to make sure you don't miss any of the action this football season.

With Prize Picks, it's good to be right.

With millions of members and billions of dollars awarded and winning, Prize Picks is the best place to put your takes to the test.

The app is really simple to use and available in 40 plus states, including California, Texas, and Georgia.

Just pick two or more players across any sport, pick more or less on their projections.

And if you're right, you can cash in.

With simple stats and fan-friendly policies, PrizePicks is the best place to make your picks.

Most importantly, they don't play about your paper.

All transactions on the apps are fast, safe, and secure.

Download the PrizePicks app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

PrizePicks, it's good to be right.

Must be present in certain states, visit prizepicks.com for restrictions and details.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Today, the Matt Wall Show, the so-called public health experts in the UK have decided that actually maybe incest isn't so bad after all.

Welcoming the third world through mass migration means welcoming third world practices is just the latest example.

Also, the government shut down and nobody noticed or cared.

Pope Leo makes some very concerning comments about abortion and other topics.

And Netflix is getting the Bud Light treatment after their woke children's programming was exposed.

It's way worse than you probably think.

All of that, and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

What started as an idea is now the podcast and business blasting through your earbuds.

Launching your own business is pretty much on everyone's bucket list, but most people let it collect dust right next to learn a language and Git abs.

Stop hiding behind lame excuses like I don't have the skills.

I can't do it alone.

Turn those what-ifs into bold why-nots with Shopify backing your ideas.

They've got the tools.

You just need to take the chance.

Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S.

We even use it for our own Daily Wire shop to make sure things are running smoothly and efficiently so you can get the goods.

You might be thinking, what if I can't design a website or what if I'm worried because people haven't heard of my brand?

Not a problem.

Shopify has got you covered from the start with beautiful, ready-to-go templates that match your brand style and help you find your customers through easy-to-run email and social media campaigns.

And if you need a hand with everyday tasks, well, their AI tools created specifically for commerce can help enhance product images, write descriptions, and more.

Plus, their award-winning customer support is available 24-7 to share advice if you ever get stuck turn those dreams into

and give them the best shot at success with shopify sign up for your one dollar per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com slash walsh go to shopify.com slash walsh shopify.com slash walsh

it would be extraordinarily time-consuming if not impossible to even attempt to list all the ways that christianity is responsible for the creation and development of western civilization as we know it christianity is why the West is literate.

It's why we had the Industrial Revolution.

It's why we have a functioning legal system.

All of these achievements, of course, trace to many different individual causes, contributions of many individual Christian nations, leaders, monasteries, universities, the Crusades, and so on.

But there was one Christian innovation that all by itself had a direct...

observable and enduring impact on the trajectory of Western civilization.

And while this particular innovation isn't discussed very much, or at least it hasn't been discussed very much in recent history because we haven't had to discuss it,

well, that's about to change.

I'm talking about the Catholic Church's decision around the sixth century to ban marriages between first cousins.

And once the church banned first cousin marriages in the Middle Ages, along with marriages among steprelatives, in-laws, and godparents, the West began rapidly pulling ahead of the rest of the world.

And make no mistake about it, the church's church's influence was indeed the primary reason why Europeans stopped marrying their relatives.

The other major religions were expressly endorsing all kinds of incestuous relationships.

And the statistics bear this out.

You can see it from this graphic, which you saw up on the screen now, which is from a paper in the journal Science called The Church, Intensive Kinship and Global Psychological Variation.

And for every 500 years that a country was under the influence of the Western Church, which evolved, which, you know, the Roman Catholic Church, there was a 90% reduction in marriage rates among cousins.

And the nuclear family began flourishing.

Meanwhile, where the Western Church wasn't dominant, incest was rampant.

Persians were marrying their own siblings in addition to their own cousins.

Even the Eastern Orthodox Church, which did ban incest, wasn't as strict as the Western Church.

So, what specifically were the consequences of banning cousin marriage?

By the way, there's a reason we're talking about this.

We'll get to it in a second.

Intuitively, you could probably answer that question.

If you have any familiarity with, say, Somalia, then you get the basic idea.

Inbreeding lowers IQs.

It results in

many problems, deformities, strange facial structures.

It also results in dramatically increased rates of genetic abnormalities, including terminal illnesses.

By common estimates, marrying a first cousin more than doubles your risk of severe disorders.

It typically takes away 10 IQ points.

One study from 2002 showed that Pakistani children accounted for one-third of birth defects in the UK, even though they only made up 4% of all the births at the time in the country.

A more recent study from 2013 found that more than a third of children born with birth defects in the UK came from first cousin marriages, which were primarily Pakistani marriages.

And by one estimate, more than half of Pakistani marriages involved incestuous relationships of some kind.

Now, you probably learn the relevant biology in high school.

Children get two copies of every gene from their parents, one from their mother, one from their father.

And generally speaking, if one recessive copy of a gene is corrupted, then it's not a big deal.

It won't affect the child.

But if both parents carry a recessive copy of the bad gene, then there's a 25% chance that the child will

receive both bad copies.

First cousins, by definition, share grandparents, which means that they share roughly 12% of their DNA.

So if one cousin has the recessive gene from a serious disorder and marries his first cousin, who also has the recessive gene, there's a one in eight chance that their offspring will have the disorder.

And therefore, marrying your first cousin drastically increases the risk that your child will have a severe abnormality as compared to marrying a random member of the general population.

Now, nevertheless, in many cultures to this day,

it's taboo to acknowledge any of this.

Even when parents have a child who's clearly suffering because of inbreeding, they're often hesitant to say anything about it.

This is from a documentary that aired in the UK a few years ago.

It's some of those painful footage you'll see.

Watch.

Azmut Mehmoud lives in Nelson, Lancashire.

He's 17 years old and lives with his mum, Parveen.

God, I smell these medicines, really, but

he has to take a powerful cocktail of medications to help him get through his day, sometimes as many as 11 tablets at a time.

He has a rare genetic condition called propionic acidemia.

He lacks an enzyme that breaks down protein in the body.

You only have them in the morning.

Yeah, one and a half.

Asmut was diagnosed at 15 months old and was one of the youngest children in the UK ever to have a liver transplant.

When Azmut was first diagnosed, his doctors told Perveen that his rare liver condition was hereditary.

By marrying her first cousin, she and her husband increased the chances of passing the disease onto their children.

Azmut's rare condition is progressive and his body is slowly deteriorating.

This one's more weaker.

It's just like wearing out.

I don't know what to see if he

started getting worse.

Azmut helps out in his mum's school and babywear shop.

When he's not at college, he works on the shop floor, deals with customers, and mans the till.

I'm very protective over Uzmut.

He's like more like a, I would say, a 14-year-old than an 18-year-old.

Mentally, you know.

Despite what Usmut's mum has been told about the cause of his illness, she struggles to accept it.

I don't think there's anything wrong in uh fiscal managers because it's all culture and it's the norm really.

But having said that, I want to.

It did put me off having more

to my ex-husband now, but

you know, because I couldn't go through that again.

Quote, I don't think there's anything wrong in first-cousin marriages.

She says that despite the fact that her child is mentally and physically disabled for life

because she married her cousin.

This is how entire civilizations developed when they didn't follow the guidance of the church.

Even though they knew about the dangers of incest, how couldn't they?

It's obvious.

They persisted anyway because, you know, that's their culture.

And in the absence of Christianity, this kind of culture won out.

And the results have been devastating.

Here's one more example.

Marsin Achtor is 17 years old and lives with his family in Bradford.

He's the second of six children.

He's blind, he can't walk properly, and needs round-the-clock care.

Morsin's younger sister Hina is 13.

She's the Akhtar's fourth child.

Her sister, Zenab, is 11.

Both sisters have inherited the same disease as Morsin.

They can neither see nor hear.

All three children have an extremely rare genetic disorder called mucolipidosis type 4.

Their bodies cannot get rid of waste products properly, affecting everyday brain function from vision to movement.

The potential consequences of first cousin marriages are tragic and devastating.

My grandparents were first cousins.

Five of their daughters died in childhood, and three of my uncles were born deaf.

At the time, no one knew why because the facts were not known.

Today, the medical facts are established, but the practice

Now, the church put an end to this barbarism at scale.

They saved millions of children from suffering a fate like this.

And that's not because they had access to studies or data, as that report suggests.

It's because they knew that incest was a great moral evil.

Also, they had working eyes and ears, and they could see the consequences.

And

as a result, children were protected.

But there were other important consequences of the church's ban as well.

Yes, many more Europeans were born without crippling genetic disorders, and that obviously benefited many Western nations for many generations, but there were other more subtle benefits as well.

In that paper I mentioned earlier from Science magazine, the researchers explained some of these benefits.

We'll put that up on the screen.

Quote, countries with lower rates of cousin marriage are more individualistic and independent, less conforming and obedient, and more inclined toward trust and cooperation with strangers.

Longer exposure to the Western church is associated with less intensive kinship, greater individualism, less conformity, and more fairness and trust towards strangers.

In other words, when a lot of people are marrying their own cousins, society tends to be much more insular, collectivist, conformist, ultimately primitive.

That makes sense.

When you're not intermingling with other people, when your marriages only take place within your own family, then family elders generally call the shots.

It's less important to have a functioning government.

People become suspicious of anyone outside the family, reducing cooperation and social cohesion.

That's basically what the study is saying.

The result is stagnation at both the genetic level and with respect to society at large.

You look at countries in South Asia, like Pakistan, they see a highly disproportionate number of genetic disorders as a result of inbreeding.

Their governments are also dysfunctional.

They're failed states.

Again, all this was conventional wisdom for a very long time.

No one really talked about the dangers of inbreeding or the role of the Catholic Church in banning inbreeding, simply because it was common sense.

This was a conversation that we didn't need to have.

But that has changed now, thanks to mass migration.

In some corners of the West, it's apparently not common sense anymore.

Certain countries have now imported so many third world aliens, mostly from countries that practice inbreeding, that they're now openly endorsing the practice of marrying your cousin.

Yes, in a decade where public health authorities have systematically discredited themselves in in seemingly every way imaginable, somehow that bar has just been lowered even further.

So in Britain, the government-run National Health Service just published guidance about this.

And

what they were doing in the guidance was essentially promoting cousin marriage.

This is from the Telegraph this week.

Quote, Guidance published last week by the NHS England's genomics education program says

first cousin cousin marriage is linked to stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages.

The NHS guidance points out the practice has been legal in the UK since the 1500s as a loophole for King Henry VIII to marry Catherine Howard, his ex-wife's cousin.

Now, before we go any further with this article, I need to stop here for a second.

The NHS is saying that because King Henry married his ex-wife's cousin in the 1500s, therefore we should permit cousin marriage today.

And there are two major problems here.

First of all, King Henry had no genetic relationship with his ex-wife's cousin.

That's kind of important.

The risk of passing along a genetic disorder due to inbreeding, therefore, was not elevated.

Secondly, even if King Henry had married a first cousin, it still wouldn't obviously justify endorsing the idea as a general principle half a millennia later.

The only possible explanation here is that for political reasons, the NHS is scrambling to find some way to

endorse, promote, rationalize inbreeding, no matter how dishonest it may be.

After all, they have to appease all of their new constituents from the third world.

So presumably, pretty soon we could expect some official guidance from the British government on how cannibalism isn't so bad.

Ritual sacrifices, maybe not such a bad thing.

That's where this is headed.

Well, let's continue with the Telegraph's report on the NHS's guidance because the logical fallacies keep on coming, as you might expect.

Quote, the document mentions that marriage between cousins has long been the subject of scientific discussion based on the slight increase in the risk of inheriting diseases.

It also adds that there are other things that increase the risk of this too, such as alcohol, smoking, and parental age, none of which are banned in the UK.

Genetic counseling, awareness-raising initiatives, and public health campaigns are all important tools to help families make informed decisions without stigmatizing certain communities and cultural traditions.

The guidance reads.

According to the Daily Mail, the NHS guidance also states that, quote, in the general population, a child's chance of being born with a genetic condition is around 2% to 3%.

This increases to 4% to 6% in children of first cousins.

Hence,

most children of first cousins are healthy.

That's really what they're arguing.

They're implying that doubling the risk of genetic abnormalities is no big deal because, after all, it's apparently legal to smoke and drink while you're pregnant in the UK.

But that is obviously not an argument for allowing first-cousin marriages.

It's, if anything, an argument for not allowing people to smoke and drink while they're pregnant.

What we're seeing here from the NHS is something that's become very common in recent years.

Organizations that are supposed to focus on public health and only on public health are making political arguments instead and legal arguments.

The NHS should not be in the business of crafting gotcha arguments to justify inbreeding,

which is also something that I, like, these are all things that shouldn't need to be said.

This whole conversation shouldn't, we shouldn't need to have it.

But we do.

We do.

What they should be talking about is science and data, and that's it.

And by the way, when it comes to inbreeding, the science and data are very clear.

There's just,

there's nothing to talk about, or there shouldn't be.

But because incestuous marriages are are common in many of the cultures that the UK and also the U.S.

import by the millions every year, the NHS has decided to publish political propaganda instead.

They decided that their job is not to warn about the dangers of this disgusting practice, but instead to find some way to justify it, defend it, rationalize it, normalize it.

They've apparently pulled Now, this guidance that we're talking about, after all the backlash that you would anticipate, they've apparently pulled it now from their website.

But we all know that the British government hasn't changed its mind or its goals.

As mass migration continues, we will be pulled further backwards into the kinds of primitive practices that our ancestors abandoned millennia ago.

That is inevitable.

In fact, in this country, several states, including California, Vermont, and Massachusetts, still permit first cousin marriages.

In Connecticut, they're just getting around now to outlawing it.

This This is a news report from just a few days ago.

Watch.

Believe it or not, you are allowed to marry your first cousin in Connecticut, but only for 12 more days.

On October 1st, a new law goes into effect banning saying I do to your first cousin.

It's something Democrat and Republican lawmakers agreed on earlier this year.

Your reporter Dylan Fearn explains why.

She's getting married today.

Tom Kelly is bringing home flowers to both his wife and sister, who's getting married today in Southington.

Not to her cousin, though.

And in less than two weeks, no one will be able to marry their first cousin.

It's pretty wild.

I mean, I would have never thought about marrying my first cousin.

It didn't really enter my mind, but you know, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Still got a few days.

I still got a few days.

I did get married, not to my cousin, though, last year.

Hi, honey.

In a world where political parties seem to disagree on just about everything, the bill to not keep it in the family passed unanimously this year.

Governor Lamont signed it into law.

The reason procreation between first cousins increases the chances of birth defects.

It's just so wrong because of the birth defects.

Starting October 1st, you won't be able to marry your first cousin.

That's good.

Now, I noticed that everyone they interview in Connecticut, including the random guy that they conduct an extended interview with, who's forced to clarify that he's not marrying his cousin, has exactly the same opinion on incestuous relationships

like this.

They all oppose it.

And this is an overwhelmingly left-wing state.

As you just heard for now, this is a rare topic in this country where there is unanimous bipartisan agreement.

Now, the only way that will change is if, like the UK, we continue to import foreigners,

third worlders, until our country is unrecognizable.

There's a very strong argument, as we've discussed, that banning incestuous relationships is one of the primary reasons that the West evolved while the rest of the world stagnated.

That's why the enemies of Western civilization want to legitimize first-cousin marriages at the moment.

They know it will cement Western decline just as surely as the bans on incest allowed us to succeed in the first place.

And that's why I'll say for the first time in the history of this show that the federal government should follow Connecticut's lead.

We need a federal ban on first-cousin marriages universally before the practice takes hold in the various foreign enclaves in this country,

a federal ban would protect children from suffering and dying from terrible genetic conditions.

And it would communicate very clearly that, unlike the UK, the United States is still interested in preserving and defending Western civilization.

This is not an 80-20 issue.

This is a

99-to-1 issue.

And the one doesn't even belong in the country.

So whenever the federal government is open and operational again, this is a no-brainer.

Admittedly, there aren't many countries left in the world that would pass a ban like this, but if the U.S.

is going to survive where so many other nations have failed, we need to be one of them.

Now, let's get to our five headlines.

Are you drowning in credit card and loan debt?

Well, you're not alone, but there's something most people don't know.

Fall is actually the best time to negotiate with your lenders.

Why fall?

Well, because credit card companies and lenders are doing year-end accounting, desperately need to clear problem accounts from their books before audits begin.

This creates a narrow window where they're far more willing to cut deals than at any other time of year.

Done with debt has cracked the code on this timing advantage.

They know exactly which companies are most motivated to negotiate right now and use this insider knowledge to get results you can't achieve on your own.

Best part, no bankruptcy, no new loans, no credit damage effect.

Most clients end up with more money in their pocket within the first month because they're no longer drowning in minimum payments.

But this window won't stay open forever.

Once Q4 hits, lenders tighten up again and your leverage disappears.

Get started now while you still have time.

Go to donewithdebt.com and talk with one of their specialists for free.

Visit donewithdebt.com.

Donewithdebt.com.

All right.

Okay.

So, you know, one of the hardest things about having this job, about being in political media, one of my great struggles is that every year or multiple times a year,

there will be a news cycle about

a government shutdown.

There will be a very hysterical news cycle about a government shutdown, about either the government shutting down or an impending government shutdown.

And, you know, if you're in my position as someone who does a political commentary show, you're supposed to pretend to care about it.

And,

you know, that's this, this is supposed to be, as they used to say in the radio business, topic A

is a government shutdown.

That's what everyone's talking about.

But I don't care, and I've never cared.

I find these news cycles incredibly boring.

I really do.

Yet here we are again.

Fox News reports.

The federal government is officially entering a partial shutdown on Wednesday after the midnight funding deadline passed with Democrats and Republicans failing to agree on a funding bill.

An early attempt by Senate Republicans to pass a short-term extension of fiscal year 2025, called a continuing resolution, was sunk by Democrats who were furious about being sidelined and shut down negotiations.

The bill, which would have given Congress until November 21st,

passed the House largely along party lines of September 19th.

And blah, blah, blah.

Okay, so the government is shut down only partially, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, only partially.

Democrats are calling it the Republican shutdown.

Republicans are calling it the Democrat shutdown.

That's the level of

discussion.

right now.

That's the level of commentary.

So everyone on the left is saying, this is the Republican shutdown.

And the Republicans are saying, no, nah, it's the Democrat shutdown.

And, you know, that's the same song and dance every time.

And meanwhile, if you're a normal person,

you would never know that the government shut down.

That's why they have to scream about it from the rooftops, because otherwise you wouldn't know.

If you weren't told about it, you wouldn't know.

Like going about your daily life, you wouldn't encounter anything that would make you say, huh,

the federal government must be in a partial shutdown right now.

Hmm.

Wow, I've just encountered this obstacle or inconvenience.

This can only be because the federal government is in a partial shutdown.

You would never know that.

You could go about your life for six months and there'd be a partial shutdown of the federal government and you would never know if nobody told you.

It would not impact your life in the slightest.

unless you're a federal bureaucrat.

But for everybody else, this has no impact on anything.

Your daily life is not impeded in the slightest.

And yet every time this happens, we still get the same panic as if we haven't already been this through this before, as if we all have amnesia, which I guess a lot of people do these days.

And that's obviously why they're so panicked over a shutdown, because they don't want you to notice that you don't notice when the government shuts down.

Because then you'll realize that there are wide swaths of the federal government that we can do without.

Not only do without, but we won't even feel their absence.

They don't want you to realize that, and that's the only reason they freak out.

Otherwise, this story doesn't matter.

And

also, it's not interesting.

I just don't

find it interesting.

I think it's boring.

So

moving on.

This one is more interesting in all the wrong ways.

So the Archbishop of

Chicago,

Cardinal Supich, plans to give a lifetime achievement award to Senator Dick Durbin.

And Senator Dick Durbin is a rabidly, he was a Democrat.

And I was going to say he's a rapidly pro-abortion Democrat, but that's redundant.

He's a Democrat, so he's rapidly pro-aborting.

They don't make any other kind of Democrat these days.

So he's a rapidly pro-abortion Democrat.

And that's raised a lot of concern,

justified concern, outrage, justified outrage among Catholics.

Why are we awarding this guy?

I mean, it's bad enough

when the Archbishop refuses to loudly condemn somebody like Dick Durbin.

That's what should be happening.

You should be rebuking him publicly, repeatedly.

Not only do we not get that, but instead you're going the other direction.

You're going to give this guy an award.

So the Pope, Pope Leo, was asked to weigh in on this.

And

I still haven't quite, it's still surreal to me me that uh that you know the the the pope can be asked a question now and we in America can listen to the answer and understand what he's saying without a translator so this is the first time in history when that's been the case and it's good

it's a very good thing

and it's good because now we don't have to you know during uh pope francis the the reign of pope francis

He would often have these conversations with reporters.

But

if you only speak English, you couldn't understand what he was saying.

And so we would always, we would always be relying on translation.

And he would say all these things, and often the things that he would say would be,

you know,

sort of, he would seem to be saying things that as a believing Catholic, you would find objectionable.

But there was always,

it's like a little bit obscure.

And so you were never quite sure.

And they could always say, well, it's lost in translation.

We don't have that problem this time.

We can just listen to what this pope, what Pope Leo is saying,

which is good.

But what's not so good is what he was actually saying.

So let's listen to that.

Just wanted to ask one thing that has become a bit of a divisive subject in the U.S.

right now.

With Cardinal Supic

giving an award to

Senator Durbin, some people of faith are having a hard time with understanding this because he is pro,

or rather, he's for legalized abortion.

How would you help people of faith right now decipher that, feel about that, and how do you feel about that?

I'm not terribly familiar with the particular case.

I think that it's very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I'm not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate.

I understand the difficulty and the tensions, but I think as I myself have spoken in the past, it's important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church.

Someone who says I'm against abortion but says I'm in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.

So someone who says that I'm against abortion but I'm in agreement with the

inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States.

I don't know if that's pro-life.

So they're very complex issues.

I don't know if anyone has all the truth on them, but I would ask first and foremost that there be greater respect for one another and that we search together both as human beings, in that case as American citizens or citizens of the state of Illinois, as well as as Catholics, to say we need to really look closely at all of these ethical issues and to find the way forward as church.

Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear.

Well, that is a

really bad answer.

That's a bad answer.

And it's not bad in some kind of semantic way.

Okay, as a Catholic, I wouldn't sit here and be pedantic and pick the Pope apart just to prove that I'm smart or something.

Okay, I don't want to well actually the Pope.

Well, actually,

Pope Leo.

But actually, let me tell you,

just kind of smug,

you know, correcting someone.

I don't want to do that.

I wouldn't do that.

But what he said, his answer is just fundamentally

bad.

It's fundamentally bad and wrong.

And it's potentially deeply confusing for a lot of people.

So it needs to be addressed.

It just has to be.

And I know there are still, there are

some Catholics, some very conservative Catholics.

I'm one of them.

So these are people I relate to in so many ways.

But for some very conservative Catholics, they take the view that as a Catholic like myself in the public eye, I just should not be publicly criticizing the Pope at all.

It's not appropriate to do.

That's the view of some, some very conservative Catholics.

And I disagree with that.

I mean,

I I don't like doing it.

It's sad to have to do it.

But when you have the Pope saying stuff like this,

we're just going to let it sit out there.

We're going to

just

let it go unopposed.

We can't.

You can't do that.

It's scandalous.

People are scandalized by this.

Led astray.

Now, it would be one thing if we could rely on

church leadership a little bit farther down the ladder to speak up in these scenarios and offer clarification,

but we can't.

And so

it relies on just normal people to speak up and say this is wrong.

And this is just wrong.

It really is.

It's outrageously wrong.

He says that if you're against abortion but in favor of the death penalty, then you aren't really pro-life.

Okay.

That is,

again, wrong and ridiculous.

I mean, first of all, God himself prescribes the death penalty in the Bible.

Is God not pro-life?

I mean, this is why you cannot, as a Christian, take the position that the death penalty is fundamentally or inherently immoral or inherently, you know, anti-life, which is the same thing as being fundamentally immoral.

You can't take that position.

That position is ruled out.

It's off the table.

God ordains it.

He prescribes it.

So if you believe the death penalty is fundamentally wrong or anti-life, you're either saying that God is guilty of a moral crime or you're saying that the Bible does not accurately record

God's commands.

And both of those claims are themselves inadmissible for a Catholic.

You know, Pope Francis

said infamously that the death penalty is inadmissible.

What is actually inadmissible is to call it inadmissible for the reason I just described.

You can't get around that.

Now, you can argue the death penalty shouldn't be used anymore.

You can argue that things have changed, that you can argue that our circumstances are different.

I wouldn't agree, but you can argue that.

But to make any kind of fundamental moral claim about the death penalty itself is to offer a moral critique of God.

And there is no way around it.

There just isn't.

And saying, well, that was the Old Testament.

Well, if that's your answer, then you just don't.

Like, this is this, like,

basic Christian teaching, you don't understand.

You don't understand the basics of like how to read the Bible.

It doesn't work that way.

That the stuff in the Old Testament is just like, it doesn't count anymore.

It doesn't count.

That's all, it was all wrong.

No.

No.

The Old Testament is also the Word of God.

And God, again, prescribes the death penalty

in the Old Testament,

which means that, like, again,

you can make a lot of arguments.

It doesn't, like, that in and of itself, by itself,

is not,

does not prove that, necessarily, that we should have

the death penalty, you know,

in our country today, because you could try to make the argument, again, you could make the argument, well, circumstances and all that.

But what you can't do

is say that it's morally inadmissible, that it is, which is what Pope Francis said, that

it contradicts human dignity, which is what he said, that it's anti-life, because these are, that's not a circumstantial argument about the death penalty.

You're talking about the death penalty fundamentally.

You're making a fundamental argument about the death penalty itself,

which would mean that that would have applied thousands of years ago too.

Which would mean that you're making a moral critique of God, and it's just that's like theologically incoherent.

And you just can't do that.

So that's a problem.

And also, by the way.

When Pope Francis came along a few years ago and said, actually, the death penalty is inadmissible, he was not only contradicting the word of God, but he was also contradicting 2,000 years of church teaching.

I mean, for 2,000 years, that was not the teaching of the church for 2,000 years.

And then Pope Francis came along, you know, approximately 12 and a half seconds ago and said, nah, actually, actually, I've decided the whole thing is wrong.

Actually,

2,000 years of church teaching was wrong.

The Bible was wrong.

God's wrong.

Everybody's wrong.

I'm right.

That's what Pope Francis.

That's what he did.

That's what he did.

And it's indefensible.

And even putting all that aside,

to draw a moral equivalence

between executing a convicted murderer after a fair trial,

and then on the other hand, dismembering a child in the womb

is madness.

I mean, that's flat-out moral madness.

Okay, these things, even if you're against the death penalty, clearly these are not on the same moral plane.

On the one hand,

you are convicting someone who has committed a heinous crime in a country where that person knows the death penalty exists.

They have volunteered themselves for this punishment by committing a crime that they knew had that punishment attached to it.

And then

this penalty is being carried out

by

authorized authorities

on one hand.

On the other hand, you have a child in the womb who has committed no crime, is guilty of nothing, there has been no trial, there has been nothing at all, and they are summarily executed in a clinic by someone claiming to be a doctor.

To draw any kind of equivalence between those two things is, you know what it is?

It's like Reddit tear nonsense.

And in reality, the death penalty is pro-life.

Okay, the death penalty is pro-life.

The death penalty is something that you do because you cherish and value the lives of the innocent people who fall victim to these heinous, barbaric, animalistic predators.

Okay, that's

it's pro-life.

If you really value, if you really truly value the lives of these innocent people,

then you would call for

the ultimate penalty for anyone who

takes someone's life, takes the life of an innocent.

What else does it say?

He says that someone who says I'm against abortion, but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States.

I don't know if that's pro-life.

Well,

what?

Who ever made that argument?

Who in America is arguing for inhuman treatment of immigrants?

What do you mean?

You know, I've never heard anyone argue for inhuman treatment of immigrants.

No one's making that argument.

I've not heard a single person say, you know what,

we should treat

immigrants in an inhuman, inhumane way.

No one's arguing that.

So what sort of inhuman treatment is being inflicted on illegals?

I think you really need to explain that.

You can't just come out and say, well, there are people in America that want to do inhuman treatment of illegals or of immigrants without explaining, like, what exactly?

What treatment are you referring to?

Are you talking about deportations?

Are you saying that deporting an illegal immigrant is morally equivalent or even similar at all to killing a human child?

Is that it?

And finally, I think the most disturbing part is when he says that these are complex issues.

These are very complex issues.

I don't know if anyone has all the truth on them.

What?

No one has all the truth?

Yeah, we do.

I mean, on abortion, we don't have all the truth.

Yeah, we definitely have all the, we have all the truth on abortion, all the truth.

There's no other truth to the abortion that we're waiting to find out.

We know it all.

It's a human being who's being killed.

And that is a great moral.

evil.

It's a grave sin.

What do you mean we don't have all the truth?

What other truth is there?

That is the truth of abortion.

That's the entire thing.

It's like the truth of 2 plus 2 is that it equals 4.

That's it.

That's the entire truth of it.

And it's just as obvious and inevitable to say that killing a human child in the womb is immoral lethal.

That's all the truth.

So,

what does that mean that we don't have all the truth?

And anyway, what does any of this have to do with the matter at hand?

Even if everything that the Pope said in that statement made sense,

that still wouldn't answer the question.

Should the Archbishop of Chicago

be giving an award

to a guy who has spent 40 years in office advocating for promoting and funding the murder of the unborn?

That's the question.

All the other stuff, like, what does immigration have to do with it at all?

What does the death penalty have to do with it?

It's totally irrelevant.

I mean, what are you trying to say?

That, like, well, other people are bad too.

This is the Archbishop of Chicago giving a lifetime achievement award to a guy who has spent his lifetime funding and promoting the mass slaughter of babies.

Why is it hard to say, no, we certainly should not be giving an award to that person?

I mean,

this is someone who should be just excommunicated.

That's what should be happening.

But if you're not going to do that, then why is it hard to say, well, obviously, we're not going to give an award to them.

Clearly not.

I mean, if you fund and facilitate the murder of one baby, that should disqualify you from ever be gaining a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Catholic Church.

But fund and facilitate the murder of like hundreds, thousands?

Well,

of course, what other thing could he have possibly achieved that would override

that?

And the only thing we hear is: well, he's been in office for 40 years.

Who?

So?

40 years doing what exactly?

Since when is that,

would you use that defense of what, like pole pot?

Well, Pol Pot, you know, he

served for many years.

He served for many years, Pol Pot did.

So, who's to say?

Who's to say?

Who are we to condemn?

Who are we to condemn?

You know,

as I say, you might want to condemn

genocide

in Cambodia.

But if you're in favor of

impolite treatment to illegal immigrants, then who are you?

I mean, you're just as bad.

This to me is just infuriating.

I'm sorry.

It just is.

And we just can't

just, you can't have it.

You can't allow that to just stand.

unchallenged.

And you also can't, because even worse, you have some Catholics who they,

and like, I'm always talking here about conservative Catholics, because the liberal quote-unquote Catholics, I don't, they're not really Catholic, they don't count, but

the conservative Catholics,

even worse, some of them will feel the need.

And to be fair, I haven't, to be fair, I haven't seen this yet with this, but I'm pretty sure it's happening because it happened all throughout Pope Francis.

You're going to have conservative cats, some who feel the need to

pretend that this is not exactly what it sounds like.

They feel the need to look you in the eyes and lie to you and tell you that, no, he wasn't really, that's not what he was really saying.

They think they have to lie,

that they're like morally called to lie and pretend that this is not what it actually is.

And I'm not going to do that.

I just refuse to do it.

Well, Joy Reed was, I'm not sure where she was.

She was doing some kind of interview somewhere.

Doesn't matter.

Anyway, it's good because it finally gives us some detail.

You know, we constantly hear from Democrats about fascist fascism, the fascist agenda of conservatives and MAGA.

Never hear them explain what that means.

What does fascism mean?

Well,

in this short clip, she finally kind of fleshes it out.

So here is Joy Reed talking about

what our fascist agenda actually is.

Listen to this.

Is that if you go back before the 20th century, there were no income taxes, there were no regulations on business.

You could earn as much money as you want, leave 100% of it to your children with no taxes.

That's the world they want back.

And to get it back, they need society to change.

They need people to be less modern.

They need people to want fewer things.

Oh, it's pretty dark stuff.

So the fascists, their evil plan, our evil plan, is to let people keep their own money and then pass it down to their children.

We're the first fascists in history,

in the history of fascism, to conspire to take power away from ourselves.

You know, because the income tax is a source of immense power for the government.

It's probably their primary source of power right now.

And

I mean, it certainly is, when you have the ability to just go and like dip into the paycheck of every working American and take whatever you want.

And

nothing comes close.

And so fascists say Joy Reed says Joy Reid, they want to remove that power.

They want to abolish it.

Really terrifying stuff.

No, of course that.

makes no sense.

All she's done is admit that the fascism claim is totally bogus.

And that's because fascism, obviously for the left, is

not

the use of government power in an authoritarian or oppressive way.

It's not using the government to oppress people.

That's not what fascism is.

It's not what they mean when they use the term.

It's what they're implying.

It's what they want you to hear, but it's not what they mean.

What they mean

when they call you fascist is simply that they disagree, that you disagree with them.

That's it.

That's all it means.

To disagree with the Democrat platform is fascism by definition, by their definition, anyway.

So when we accuse the Democrats of using this term, but not having a definition for it, now they have a definition for it.

It's just not one that they want to say.

They're not going to come out and say this.

They're not going to say that anyone who disagrees with us is a fascist.

But that is what they mean.

And

that's how Joy Reed can justify saying something as inane and stupid as that.

DO back taxes.

Are your tax returns still unfiled?

Did you forget to file for an extension?

The October 15th deadline is fast approaching and time is running out.

If you haven't gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments, you could soon be targeted by the IRS.

They can garnish your wages, freeze your bank account, or even seize your property.

But there is help available.

Tax Network USA, a nationwide tax firm, has helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt.

They filed hundreds of thousands of tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens.

And they can help you too.

Don't wait.

Visit tnusa.com/slash walsh or call 1-800-958-1000 for a 100% free consultation.

In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA will guide you through some simple questions to determine how much you can save.

Take action now before it's too late.

Visit tnusa.com/slash walsh or call 1-800-958-1000.

If you're into wine and wildlife, this is your invitation to Adelaide, Australia.

Swim with seals at sunrise, sip Shiraz at sunset, and in between, whoa, a koala.

Wait, how many wine regions?

18?

Is that a wallaby or a baby kangaroo?

Of course, I'd love to try wine from some of the oldest vines on the planet.

Come sip and see all South Australia has to offer on United, the only airline to fly non-stop from the U.S.

to Adelaide.

When the left attacks, the answer is not silence.

The answer is not to retreat.

It isn't to do less.

The answer is to show up everywhere, to make our voices louder than ever, to push out more content, more truth, more breaking news, more investigative journalism, fighting harder than ever before.

That's what we're doing at the Daily Wire.

This October, Daily Wire Plus members are getting more new films, more new shows, more new documentaries, and more of everything you expect from us.

Join now and get it all with 40% off new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships.

Now, let's get to our daily cancellation.

Well, Netflix has had a difficult week.

Thousands of people, including Elon Musk, are canceling their Netflix subscriptions after Libs of TikTok posted a particularly disturbing clip from a Netflix children show.

Before we play the clip, keep in mind that this show is several years old.

It's been on Netflix's platform apparently for about four or five years.

This is not something that just appeared last week.

So children have been exposed to this for years before anyone noticed.

And this is from a show called Dead End Paranormal Park, which is rated Y7,

meaning that it's supposed to be appropriate for kids at the age of seven and up.

So, watch.

It's not the park.

It's

me.

I'm trans normal, and everyone at school knows, and everyone at home knows.

And being here, it's like a whole new place.

I can just be Barney, and I can choose if and when I tell people.

I've never been happier.

And that's saying something when I spent today chased by terrifying zombie mascots.

Pugsley reminded me how important it is to live your life without apology.

Now, that's bad enough, but you know, this is one clip that's gone viral.

It's not as though the trans angle was mentioned just that one time.

The entire plot revolves around it.

The protagonist is, according to Wikipedia, anyway, a quote, gay trans teen boy.

And the protagonist's best friend in the show is a bisexual, autistic, Pakistani-American girl with social anxiety.

So they really checked all the boxes.

The creator of this show is someone named Hamish Steele, who lists his pronouns as he, they.

It won't surprise you to learn that Hamish attacked Charlie Kirk only a day after he was shot, calling him a Nazi.

So this is a delusional and deranged extremist producing content for seven-year-old children to watch, and Netflix is happy to provide a platform for it.

This is far from the only show of this type on Netflix.

Lives of TikTok has posted several other similar examples over the past couple of days.

More trans propaganda, gay weddings featured in children's cartoons cartoons and so on.

Everything you would expect.

For example, here's a clip from a show called Ada Twist Scientist.

And again, this is targeted at seven-year-olds.

Here it is.

Are you excited for your big day?

I can't wait to kick things off.

Thanks for making our special day happen.

We can't wait for all our family and friends to visit our favorite place in the world.

We all wanted to help even Professor Flowerbaum.

I couldn't miss Since Dave's big day.

He taught me how to really smash stuff.

Oh, now let's get ready to romance.

Wow.

I can't wait for my mom to feast her eyes on this.

I haven't seen her in way too long.

Now, in case you're wondering, Netflix does not save its LGBT indoctrination for kids seven and older.

That would be bad enough.

They also have plenty of preschool LGBT programming.

Here's a show called Gecko's Garage, aimed at two-year-olds, featuring a, in one episode, gay pride parade.

Come on, Red, you can do it.

I'm so proud of you all.

Let the carnival continue.

Now, as I often point out and can't help but point out again,

these are, among the many other problems, these are ugly shows.

And that's before you even get to the wokeness and the gay stuff.

The animation is ugly.

It's totally lifeless.

It's dead.

There's no artistry here, just bright colors and noise.

Nobody involved in producing these shows has any respect for their audience, their audience of children, nor do they take any pride in their work.

They have gay pride, but they don't have any artistic pride.

You know, there's no charm to it.

It's just, this is not art.

It's dull.

It's empty.

It's worthless.

And that should be reason enough to prohibit your children from watching it.

Just looking at that show before you even see the pride flags

and you look at the way that it's animated and everything.

And that should be enough when you look at that to say, no,

I'm not going to have my kids watch this.

It's the audio and visual version of like giving your kids soda and potato chips for dinner.

Why would you do it?

As for the messaging, as a parent, you have to understand that,

and I think most parents at this point do understand that

wokeness is not a rare pitfall that a few kids' shows stumble into.

I mean, Lima's a TikTok has been the last few days just posting clip after clip from all kinds of Netflix shows.

It's like the whole platform.

This stuff is totally pervasive.

It's everywhere.

The majority of children's programming is like this.

It is the rule, not the exception, which means you can either be hyper-vigilant and aware and exercise strict control over what your children watch and the kind of media they consume, or

they will ingest a steady diet of LGBT propaganda starting before they can talk.

Those are your two options.

So-called helicopter parents get a bad rap, but when it comes to media, you're either going to be a helicopter parent or a neglectful one.

There really is not much room in between.

You can either hover over your children and very closely monitor what they're watching, or

you can entrust them into the hands of weird degenerates like Hamish Steele.

Again,

there is not any moderate compromise here.

And the stakes, I don't need to tell you, are very high.

This is not a small or superfluous issue.

I know there are some people on the right who treat this kind of issue like it is.

so it's like, well, why are you talking about woke?

Why are you talking about children's programming?

What does that matter?

Are there more important things happening in the world?

There's some more important things happening, but this is very, very important.

Because the goal of this kind of propaganda and the reason they put it in shows aimed at kindergartners is obviously to normalize what they're showing on screen.

The great obstacle that LGBT activists face is that all the things they're pushing, transgenderism, gender fluidity, gay weddings, all that stuff, all of that

is abnormal.

And a person's immediate gut-level reaction when they see something that is abnormal is to recoil.

So LGBT activists are pushing against not just human nature, but thousands of years of human history.

The campaign to normalize transgenderism in particular only really began in earnest on a national scale

about 10 years ago.

So for most adults in this country,

it was just too late.

You know, and we're noticing that now.

It's a hopeless battle for the trans activists.

You can harangue and harass and threaten a lot of people in the hopes of coercing them into going along with your agenda obediently,

but You can't fundamentally convince them that it's normal and not weird for a man to walk around and address.

This is the problem that trans activists are facing.

It's why they've lost most of the cultural ground that they gained over the past decade.

It's because the propaganda doesn't stick.

You know, they gained a lot of ground mostly by coercing, threatening, harassing people, cancel culture, all the rest of it.

But that, you know,

the fear-mongering and the scare tactics, they lose their sting after a while.

And then what these trans activists found is like, that's all they had.

Because when you don't have the scare tactics, people just revert back to their natural state, which is when you see a guy in a dress, it's weird.

Like you can't take it seriously.

And that's what they're up against.

But

what if you start younger?

I mean, what if you start much, much younger?

Can you essentially change the factory settings on the human mind by exposing children to these bizarre concepts almost as soon as they emerge from the womb?

Can you construct basically an alternate reality for children

and keep them in it?

One that is totally divorced from reality itself?

Can you essentially override that gut-level instinct that causes human beings to naturally recoil from things that are unnatural and disordered?

That's the gambit.

And the thing is that in a world where we're surrounded by media all the time, where the average person spends nearly every waking hour consuming media in some form or another,

it might actually be possible.

If you start young enough and they're totally consumed by this stuff,

it might be possible.

It might be possible to create a generation of humans who don't even, who actually don't instinctively recognize.

that a guy in a dress who says he's a girl, that there's something wrong there.

They don't even instinctively, like they really don't even recognize that as a problem instinctively.

You might be able to create a generation of people like that.

That's the experiment that these people are running right now.

And it's why this stuff is everywhere in kids' programming.

Because they're running this experiment on

our children, on your children.

Netflix is running this experiment.

And they're one of the worst offenders, which is why we should all say say that Netflix, in both a literal and figurative sense, is today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.

Godspeed.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, President Trump unveils an extraordinary plan for the Gaza Strip that actually has buy-in from Israel, Arab countries, and the United States, but not yet Hamas.

A government shutdown looms as Democrats shilly-shally, and Democrats still can't shake their radicalism.

All that on today's Ben Shabira show, give it a listen.